Source: ocregister.com 3/28/22
In a 1996 Harvard Law Review article, Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a law school student, noted the “climate of fear, hatred, and revenge” in which policies dealing with sex offenders are formulated. Before Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing began this week, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, objected to that observation, then proceeded to demonstrate its accuracy.
Hawley’s misrepresentation of Jackson’s record in this area was typical of the criticism leveled at Supreme Court nominees, which often involves inflammatory, acontextual citations of a candidate’s statements and decisions. But it also illustrated the difficulty of having a rational conversation about the legal treatment of sex offenders, a broad and diverse category that extends far beyond the “child predators” on whom Hawley focused.
The senator claimed Jackson, as a federal judge, had shown an “alarming pattern” of “sentencing leniency for sex criminals” who are “preying on children.” But the cases he cited actually involved defendants convicted of possessing or sharing child pornography rather than defendants convicted of sexually abusing children.
Hawley averred that Jackson favored “letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes.” Here, too, he obscured an important distinction: between people who produce child pornography, which necessarily entails abuse of children, and people who look at the resulting images.
Hawley also equated sentencing offenders of the latter type to, say, five years in prison rather than 15 with “letting (them) off the hook.” And he ignored longstanding, widespread, bipartisan criticism of the penalties that federal sentencing guidelines recommend for nonproduction child pornography offenses, which many judges, prosecutors and jurors view as excessive.
Federal law draws an outmoded distinction between receiving child pornography, which triggers a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, and possessing such material, which in the internet context is essentially the same crime. In possession cases, judges have more discretion, although the guidelines recommend penalties based on congressionally prescribed “enhancements” that cover nearly all defendants.